iii 


#4 


-'^  ;{  -„^ 


T.V.   Moore 


Inspiration  of  the   Scriptures! 
Morell's   Theory  Reviewed 


'!        rtt  aW* 


i^'.^.^\' 


m 


nM 


^t 


'^'  ^ 


BS480 
Ml 


f^' 


^ 


:^k:/^^ 


'iv^Mi'^tu.       «  i  i'^  (ilil 


'BS480 


INSPIRATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTIJRE8 : 

MORELL'S  THEORY  REVIEWED. 

A  LECTURE 

OK  THB 

EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY: 

DELrVEBED   AT  THE 

UNIVERSITY   OF   VIRGINIA, 
November  24,  1850. 


Bt  the  Ret.  T.  V.   MOORE, 
Richmond,  Va. 


RICHMOND: 

PRINTED   BY   COLIN,    BAPTIST    AND  NOWLAN. 

1860. 


INSPIEATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 

MORELL'S  THEORY  REVIEWED. 

A  LECTURE,  IN  COURSE, 


EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY 


DELIVERED    AT    THE 


1 


UNIVERSITY    OF    VIRGINIA, 


November  24,   1850. 


By    the   Rev.    T.   V.   MOORE, 
Richmond,  Va. 


RICHMOND: 

printed   by    COLIN,    BAPTIST    AND   NOWLAN. 

1850. 


'J 


EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


INSPIRATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES: 

MORELL'S  THEORY  DISCUSSED  AND  REFUTED. 


By  the  Rev.  T.  V.  MOORE, 
Richmond,  Va. 


Has  God  spoken  in  an  authenticated  form  to  man  ?  is  one 
of  the  most  momentous  questions  that  man  can  ask  or  an- 
swer. If  he  has  not,  then  a  thousand  demands  of  duty  and 
of  destiny  crowd  upon  us  for  solution.  What  am  I  ?  Whence 
am  I  ?  Whither  am  I  bound  ?  Why  am  I  here  ?  What  re- 
lation has  my  here  to  my  hereafter  ?  and  kindred  queries, 
rise  clamorous  and  pressing  upon  the  soul.  We  bend  over  the 
cradle  to  learn  the  mystery  of  our  origin,  but  no  note  of  in- 
telligence comes  from  the  little  unconscious  one  that  nestles 
there.  We  strain  our  gaze  into  the  gloom  of  the  grave  to  un- 
ravel the  problem  of  our  destiny,  and  ask  "  if  a  man  die,  shall 
he  live  again?'"  but  no  reply  comes  up  from  the  voiceless 
dwelling  of  the  worm,  the  clod,  and  the  coffin.  We  turn  to 
the  living  multitude,  the  rushing  tide  of  men,  and  ask,  what 
is  truth  ?     What  is  duty  ?     What  is  happiness  ?     What  is  safe- 


ty?  and  there  come  up  to  us  the  infinite  voices  of  a  Babel 
coufasion.  The  philosopher  says  it  is  here  ;  the  poet  says  it 
is  here ;  the  Brahmin  says  it  is  with  me ;  the  Gnostic  says  it 
is  with  me  ;  the  Academy  and  the  Porch,  the  stern  Stoic  and 
the  courtly  Epicurean  each  cry  that  the  light  has  come  only 
to  them ;  the  Moslem  points  to  the  pale  gleam  of  the  Cres- 
cent and  the  Jew  to  the  red  glare  of  Sinai ;  the  idealist  and 
the  materialist,  the  mystic  and  the  sensationalist,  the  sceptic 
and  the  traditionalist,  the  eclectic  and  the  indifferentist,  all 
affirm  that  they  only  have  the  true  voice  of  reason,  and  the 
true  theory  of  existence.  If  then,  there  is  no  utterance  from 
the  eternal  verity,  who  shall  tell  us  what  is  the  truth  amidst 
this  chaotic  din  of  multitudinous  voices  ?  If  there  is  no 
spear  of  Ithuriel,  who  shall  disenchant  for  us  the  lurking  spirit 
of  falsity,  and  give  us  a  test  to  distinguish  the  true  from  the 
untrue  ?  If  there  is  no  clue  to  this  tangled  thicket,  who  shall 
thread  the  thorny  labyrinth,  and  pluck  for  us  the  fruit  of  the 
tree  of  life  ?  Alas  !  if  we  are  left  to  ourselves,  with  our  pur- 
blind vision,  our  flickering  light,  and  our  faltering  step,  the 
mournful  fate  of  those  who  have  preceded  us,  relying  on  the 
same  aids,  warns  us  of  what  must  be  our  inevitable  destiny. 
•  If  God  has  not  spoken  to  man,  why  did  He  give  him  the 
cruel  capacity  for  such  questions  as  these  ?  If  He  meant  to 
doom  him  to  the  brute's  uncertainty,  why  did  He  not  give 
him  the  precious  boon  of  the  brute's  blank  ignorance  and  con- 
tent ?  Why  did  He  furnish  light  for  the  eye,  sound  for  the 
ear,  fragrance  and  food  for  their  respective  organs,  and  a  sup- 
ply for  every  rightful  demand  that  rises  in  our  nature,  but  this 
highest,  deepest,  most  momentous  want  of  the  soul  ? 

But  has  He  thus  left  us?  Can  it  be,  that  He  who  pre- 
serves man  and  beast,  who  feeds  the  callow  young  of  the 
sparrow,  and  hears  the  lions'  whelps  when  they  cry,  has  for- 
saken his  noblest,  greatest  work,  precisely  at  that  point  where 
it  was  most  important  that  the  law  of  supply  existing  below 
it,  should  continue  to  act  ?  Has  He  left  His  crowning  crea- 
ture in  the  crowning  purpose  and  need  of  his  existence,  as  the 


ostrich  leaves  her  egg  in  the  lone  and  trackless  desert,  without 
parental  oversight  and  bereft  of  parental  supply  ?  No  !  The 
deepest  instincts  of  our  nature,  the  widest  generalizations  of 
our  experience,  and  the  calmest  conjectures  of  our  reason 
unite  in  saying,  it  cannot  be ;  God  must  have  spoken :  and  if 
His  words  can  but  be  recognized  in  the  thousand-voiced  din 
of  this  earthly  Babel,  we  shall  learn  the  truth  to  be  believed 
and  the  duty  to  be  performed. 

If  then  He  has  spoken,  the  query  arises  is  it  in  a  form  ac- 
cessible to  all.  the  high  and  low,  the  ignorant  and  learned,  the 
weak  of  mind  as  well  as  the  mighty  ?  And  is  it  in  a  form 
sufficiently  reliable  to  be  made  trustworthy  to  all  who  have 
access  to  it  ?  These  questions  are  equivalent  to  the  inquiry, 
is  such  a  thing  possible  to  the  human  soul  as  the  inspiration 
of  the  Almighty  ?  If  so,  can  its  results  be  made  certainly 
available  to  any  other  mind  than  that  which  originally  receives 
it  ?  This  throws  open  to  us  the  whole  question  of  inspiration, 
its  psychological  possibility,  its  nature,  its  extent,  and  its  ex- 
istence as  a  fact  in  the  writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment. 

The  views  of  those  who  have  written  on  this  wide  ques- 
tion vary  from  the  extreme  of  credulity  and  word- worship  on 
the  one  side,  to  the  extreme  of  scepticism  and  man-worship 
on  the  other.  But  they  may  all  be  thrown  into  two  grand 
categories ;  they  who  affirm  in  some  form,  the  plenary  ver- 
bal inspiration  of  the  Bible,  and  they  who  in  form  or  sub- 
stance deny  it.  Of  those  who  affirm  it,  some  contend  with 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  a  few  writers  of  the  Socinian  school,  that 
some  portions  of  the  canonical  scriptures  are  thus  inspired  and 
some  are  not.  Others,  with  Calamy,  Haldane,  and  Gaussen, 
in  their  otherwise  excellent  works  on  this  subject,  contend  for 
the  theory  of  verbal  dictation,  affirming  that  the  canonical 
writers  were  the  mere  amanuenses  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  writing 
just  the  very  words  that  they  were  directed  to  write,  and  di- 
rected always  to  write  the  very  words  which  they  did  write ; 
a  theory,  however,  which  when  defined   and  explained    as 


they  hold  it,  is  found  to  be  rather  an  unfortunate  and  extrava- 
gant statement  of  the  truth,  than  an  assertion  of  positive  er- 
ror. Others  again,  with  Twesten,  Smith,  Dick,  Parry,  Wil- 
son, Henderson,  Chalmers,  and  the  great  body  of  Protestant 
theologians,  hold,  that  whilst  we  need  not  and  cannot  affirm 
that  the  writers  were  mere  scribes,  recording  with  mechanical 
accuracy  the  mere  and  ipsissima  verba  dictated  to  them  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  so  that  the  subjective  state  of  mind  of 
Matthew  in  recording  the  fact  that  Christ  was  born  in  Bethle- 
hem, was  precisely  the  same  with  that  of  Micah  in  predicting 
it :  yet  that  in  every  case  there  was  such  an  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  on  the  minds  of  the  writers  as  infallibly  to  direct 
them  what  to  say  and  what  to  omit,  so  that  we  should  have 
the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  as  far  as 
was  necessary  to  the  main  object  of  the  Bible ;  and  that 
whilst  the  very  words  were  not  in  every  case  dictated  to  the 
writers,  yet  such  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  extended  to  the 
words  selected,  as  to  prevent  the  use  of  any  that  would  ex- 
press an  error  or  an  untruth.  Of  those  who  deny  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  some  take  the  old  ground  of  im- 
posture and  fraud,  with  the  French  school ;  others  like  Priestley 
and  the  low  rationalistic  party,  admit  the  substantial  truth  of 
the  facts,  and  veracity  of  the  writers,  but  deny  any  divine  in- 
fluence to  them,  and  assert  either  that  the  facts  are  not  mira- 
culous, or  the  record  not  correct ;  others,  with  Strauss,  make 
the  entire  book  a  bundle  of  myths,  ranking  it  with  the  le- 
gends of  all  ancient  nations  concerning  the  heroic  ages  of 
their  history ;  whilst  others,  with  Schleiermacher,  admit  an 
inspiration,  but  deny  that  it  is  either  miraculous,  infallible  or 
peculiar  to  these  writers. 

The  old  theory  of  imposture  is  now  abandoned  by  nearly 
all  intelligent  sceptics,  and  left  to  the  mere  canaille  of  infi- 
delity. It  is  seen  that  it  fails  to  account  for  the  admitted 
facts  of  the  case,  to  furnish  any  satisfactory  explanation  of 
the  conduct  of  these  men,  or  to  account  for  the  existence  and 
influence  of  Christianity  and  the  Bible  as  existing  facts  in  hu- 


man  history.  It  is  felt  that  these  men  must  have  been  earn- 
est, true,  and  sincere,  to  account  for  their  impress  on  the  world's 
life,  by  any  of  the  ordinary  laws  of  human  nature ;  whilst  to 
affirm  any  other  laws,  would  be  to  allege  a  miracle  for  which 
there  was  no  proof,  to  set  aside  miracles  for  which  there  was 
proof;  and  therefore  to  admit  a  miracle  more  incredible  than 
those  that  were  rejected.  But  modern  criticism  will  take  a 
further  step  than  this,  and  admit  that  these  writers  were  the 
actual  recipients  of  a  real  divine  enlightenment,  but  will  deny 
that  they  were  so  enlightened  as  to  be  the  infallible  expoiln- 
ders  of  truth  and  duty,  or  that  their  writings  can  be  called  in- 
spired in  any  other  sense  than  the  word  may  be  loosely  and 
inaccurately  applied  to  the  writings  of  any  great,  earnest  and 
enlightened  men,  who  have  been  the  subjects  of  an  afflatus  of 
genius.  This  we  believe  to  be  essentially  the  view  presented 
by  Carlyle  in  his  essay  on  Voltaire,  and  Sartor  Resartus,  book 
iii.,  ch.  7;  by  Bailey,  Leigh  Hunt,  the  Westminster  Review, 
and  other  organs  of  literary  scepticism  or  free  thinking  on  re- 
ligious subjects  in  our  own  day. 

We  have  thought  it  best  in  an  exercise  like  the  present,  not 
to  attempt  a  discussion  of  the  whole  subject,  which  must  be 
little  better  than  a  meagre  epitome  of  the  common  places 
of  apologetical  theology ;  but  to  refer  you  to  the  works  al- 
ready named  for  a  full  treatment  of  the  whole  theme,  and 
grapple  directly  with  what  is  the  most  prevalent  form  of  error 
on  this  subject  at  present  in  the  minds  of  educated  and  lite- 
rary men.  Happily  for  our  purpose,  we  have  this  theory  set 
forth  in  a  detailed  and  scientific  form,  which  gives  us  some- 
thing tangible  and  definite  to  encounter.  Mr.  Morell,  who 
gained  no  small  reputation,  especially  among  small  scholars,  by 
his  History  of  Philosophy  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  has  pub- 
lished a  Philosophy  of  Religion,  in  which  he  presents  this 
theory  in  the  most  formal  and  elaborate  manner,  and  sets  up 
for  it  the  most  able  and  successful  defence  that  we  have  seen 
in  our  language.  As  the  alternative  is  confessedly  between 
this  theory  and  the  old  one  of  plenary  inspiration,  the  over- 


8 

throw  of  the  one  will  be  the  admitted  establishment  of  the 
other. 

We  propose  then  to  subject  to  a  detailed  and  critical  ex- 
amination, Mr.  Morell's  Theory  of  Inspiration,  as  set  forth  in 
his  Philosophy  of  Religion. 

His  theory  of  Inspiration  is  based  on  his  psychology,  but 
yet  may  be  described  in  terms  sufficiently  explicit,  without  en- 
tering into  the  details  of  his  system  of  intellectual  philosophy. 
Adopting  the  division  of  the  mental  operations  naturalized  in 
our  language  by  Coleridge,  under  the  terms  Reason  and  Un- 
derstanding, or  as  Mr.  M.  prefers  to  designate  them,  the  In- 
tuitional and  the  Logical  Consciousness,  he  affirms  inspiration 
to  be  exclusively  a  phenomenon  of  the  pure  reason.  It  is 
simply  an  elevation  of  the  intuitive  power  to  a  clearer  percep- 
tion of  spiritual  truth  than  could  ordinarily  be  attained,  but 
not  an  influence  extending  to  the  reasoning  faculties  of  the 
writers  so  as  to  ensure  accuracy  of  premises  or  conclusion ; 
nor  to  their  memories  securing  accuracy  of  recollection ;  nor 
to  their  judgments  ensuring  a  proper  selection  of  facts  and 
opinions ;  nor  to  their  writing  of  these  views,  reasonings  or 
recollections,  ensuring  a  fair,  truthful  and  infallible  record : 
that  this  inspiration  is  not  generically  different  from  thalt 
which  poets  and  other  men  of  genius  enjoy,  or  from  a  high 
degree  of  personal  holiness ;  that  in  no  proper  sense  can  the 
phrase  be  applied  to  the  Bible  so  as  to  assert  it  to  be  an  infal- 
lible rule  of  faith  and  practice ;  that  the  writers  of  Scripture 
do  not  claim  any  such  inspiration  for  their  writings ;  nor  is 
any  such  consistent  with  the  nature  of  the  human  mind. 
Such  is  the  theory  which  he  advances  as  the  only  rational 
hypothesis,  and  as  that  which  is  gradually  taking  its  place  in  the 
opinions  of  the  literary  and  philosophical  world.  Let  us  first 
look  at  the  arguments  on  which  he  rests  it,  and  then  at  the 
positive  evidence  against  it. 

It  is  affirmed  that  inspiration  being  a  state  of  the  mind,  it  is 
impossible  that  a  book  can  be  inspired  any  more  than  that  a 
book  can  reason  or  feel. 


At  first  sight  tliis  would  seem  to  be  a  mere  quibble  and  play 
upon  words,  but  the  prominence  given  to  it  by  Mr.  M.,  espe- 
cially in  his  chapter  on  Revelation,  shows  that  he  regards  it 
as  presenting  a  plain  impossibility  in  the  way  of  the  common 
theory.  But,  in  spite  of  the  value  which  he  evidently  at- 
taches to  it,  it  is  obviously  equivalent  to  the  allegation,  that 
because  genius  is  an  attribute  of  the  mind,  therefore  there  can 
be  no  such  thing  as  a  work  of  genius  ;  or  because  imagination 
and  reasoning  are  operations  of  the  mind,  therefore  there  can 
be  no  work  of  poetry  or  logic.  Granting  for  the  present,  that 
the  inspiration  of  the  canonical  writers  was  not  generically  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  poet  or  the  philosopher,  it  will  at  least 
follow,  that  they  are  governed  by  the  same  laws.  Now  it  is 
certain,  that  there  is  no  impossibility  in  giving  a  record  of  the 
mental  operations  of  the  poet  and  the  philosopher,  which  shall 
be  a  fair  and  reliable  transcript  of  the  subjective  states  of 
mind  existing  in  each  particular  case,  and  which  shall  be 
rightfully  termed  poetry  and  philosophy.  Now,  if  the  in- 
spired mind  perceives  spiritual  truth,  as  the  poet  and  philoso- 
pher perceive  poetic  and  philosophical  truth,  why  should 
that  be  impossible  in  the  one  case,  which  is  possible  in  the 
other  ?  Why  should  the  power  that  produced  the  inspiration 
be  supposed  incapable  of  extending  to  the  record,  and  secur- 
ing a  faithful  transcript  ?  This  is  a  power  which  even  a  man 
possesses  in  regard  to  his  fellow,  why  should  it  be  denied  to 
God  ?  If  one  man  may  suggest  thoughts  to  the  mind  of  ano- 
ther, may  induce  him  to  record  them  in  his  own  language, 
and  may  superintend  that  record  so  as  to  secure  a  faithful  re- 
presentation of  these  thoughts  in  words,  w^hy  should  the  same 
power  be  denied  to  that  God  who  created  man  and  gave  him 
all  his  powers  ?  It  would  surely  be  possible  for  God  to 
cause  a  human  mind  to  perceive  a  perfect  system  of  mathe- 
matical truth.  It  would  also  be  possible  for  Him  so  to  influ- 
ence that  mind,  that  it  would  make  a  correct  record  of  this 
system  in  mathematical  language.  Such  a  record  would  then 
be  an  infallible  arbiter  to  which  an  appeal  could  be  carried  in 


10 

every  case  of  disputed  mathematics.  Why  is  the  same  pro- 
cess impossible  as  to  religious  truth  ? 

It  is  said  with  an  air  of  triumph  in  reply  to  this,  that  such 
a  record  of  religious  truth  would  be  no  revelation  to  a  mind 
that  was  not  raised  to  the  same  level  of  spiritual  intuitions. 
Granted,  but  would  it  not  be  a  revelation  to  one  that  was  ?  The 
revealed  system  of  mathematical  truth  would  not  be  a  revela- 
tion to  one  who  had  no  mathematical  perceptions,  but  would 
it  not  be  to  one  who  had?  So  that  even  were  it  true,  that 
the  inspired  writers  recorded  nothing  but  that  which  could  be 
comprehended  only  by  one  who  was  capable  of  like  spiritual 
intuitions,  still  it  would  be  true  that  to  such  an  one  the  record 
might  be  an  infallible  transcript  of  the  subjective  state  of  the 
inspired  writer. 

But  it  is  not  true,  that  either  the  value  or  the  comprehen- 
sion of  every  part  of  this  record,  is  limited  to  minds  capable 
of  like  spiritual  intuitions,  any  more  than  it  is  true  that  the 
value  and  comprehension  of  every  part  of  Newton's  Principia 
are  limited  to  minds  capable  of  the  same  mathematical  percep- 
tions. There  are  many  scientific  truths  which  ordinary  minds 
could  never  have  discovered,  but  which  they  readily  compre- 
hend when  discovered,  as  Columbus  has  shown  with  his  me- 
morable egg.  So  there  are  many  things  which  the  unaided 
human  mind  could  never  have  originated  in  regard  to  spiritual 
and  eternal  realities,  or  if  originated,  could  never  have  verified, 
but  which  when  once  stated  in  language,  are  clearly  and  rea- 
dily comprehended. 

We  do  not  as  yet  affirm,  that  the  Scriptures  are  verbally 
inspired,  because  of  the  inspiration  of  the  writers,  but  we 
do  affirm  that  there  is  nothing  impossible  in  such  a  decla- 
ration of  facts.  As  an  executive  proclamation  may  be  de- 
clared authoritative  because  of  the  authority  of  him  that  issued 
it ;  as  a  will  may  be  called  testamentary  because  of  the  de- 
visory  powers  vested  in  the  testator ;  as  a  book  may  be  called 
mathematical  because  of  the  thoughts  which  a  mathematical 
mind  has  embodied  in  it ;  so  may  the  Scriptures  in  the  same 


li 

sense  be  called  inspired,  because  they  set  forth  in  true  and 
faithful  manifestation  the  mental  and  spiritual  state  of  their  in- 
spired writers. 

This  preliminary  difficulty  being  removed,  we  meet  Mr. 
M.  on  the  ground  where,  after  all,  the  issue  must  be  decided, 
the  contents  of  the  book- itself.  He  affirms  that  these  con- 
tents contradict  the  theory  of  plenary,  verbal  inspiration,  and 
demand  the  one  under  discussion. 

It  is  said  that  if  the  Bible  had  come  from  God  in  this  ple- 
nary sense,  it  would  have  been  given  in  a  more  perfect  and 
finished  form,  and  not  in  that  fragmentary  and  successive 
manner,  in  pursuance  of  which,  most  of  its  books  seem  to 
have  been  forced  into  existence  by  the  exigencies  of  existing 
circumstances,  rather  than  as  the  result  of  a  settled  plan  for 
revealing  a  complete  system  of  religious  truth. 

We  ask  in  return,  has  not  the  earth  come  forth  from  the 
immediate  hand  of  God  ?  Why  then  are  not  its  materials  ar- 
ranged with  greater  regularity?  Why  are  its  rocks  not  located 
according  to  a  perfect  system  of  geology,  its  fauna  and  flora 
according  to  a  perfect  system  of  botany,  and  its  animals  ac- 
cording to  a  perfect  system  of  zoology  ?  If  there  are  reasons 
of  convenience  to  man  requiring  such  an  arrangement  of 
God's  material  revelation  of  Himself,  may  not  the  same  ar- 
rangements be  required  in  the  spiritual  revelation  of  the  same 
great  Nature  ?  And  if  these  arrangements  do  not  blot  out  the 
mighty  sign-manual  of  Jehovah  in  the  enduring  rocks,  the 
waving  forests,  and  the  roaming  tribes  of  living  things,  or 
cause  us  to  doubt  their  immediate  issue  from  His  hand,  why 
should  they  have  this  effect  in  the  unfoldings  of  Himself  in 
His  word?  If  He  built  not  the  mighty  masonry  of  the  Alps 
according  to  any  of  the  five  orders  of  architecture,  and  chan- 
neled not  the  rolling  rush  of  the  Amazon  according  to  the 
rules  of  the  engineer,  why  should  we  demand  that  a  yet  more 
wonderful  revelation  of  Himself  should  come  forth.  Minerva- 
like, in  the  hard,  polished  and  inflexible  panoply  of  a  rigid 
methodical  science  ? 


12 

If  it  be  replied  that  the  objection  is  rather  to  the  successive 
and  gradual  development  in  fragments  of  this  alleged  reve- 
lation, than  to  its  want  of  scientific  arrangement,  then  we  an- 
swer this  by  another  question.  Does  not  the  geologist  tell  us 
that  the  earth  passed  through  many  stages  of  existence,  count- 
less ages  before  it  was  fitted  for  man  in  its  present  form  ?  Is 
it  not  passing  through  such  changes  now  ?  Does  this  gradual 
and  successive  unfolding  of  its  states  militate  against  its  origin 
immediately  from  the  hand  of  God  ?  Why  then  should  the 
same  fact  prove  that  the  Bible  in  the  same  plenary  sense  can- 
not be  the  product  of  the  immediate  hand  of  Jehovah  ? 

If  it  be  objected  to  this  analogy,  that  the  revelation  of  God 
adduced  is  one  that  was  made  in  blind  unconscious  matter,  and 
not  in  living  and  conscious  spirits,  Vv^e  meet  the  evasion  from 
another  direction.  Those  with  whom  we  argue  now,  assert 
that  God  is  in  human  history,  and  that  aside  from  and  beyond 
the  agency  of  man,  there  is  a  direct  and  immediate  exertion 
of  the  Divine  finger  in  unfolding  its  great  principles  and  re- 
sults. Now  has  not  the  Bible,  as  to  the  point  objected  to, 
come  forth  precisely  according  to  the  unfoldings  of  human 
history  ?  Has  it  not  a  clearness  of  arrangement,  an  unity  of 
purpose^  and  a  completeness  of  parts,  that  cannot  yet  be  af- 
firmed of  that  history  ?  If  then  we  contend  that  in  like  wise, 
above  and  beyond  the  human  impulses  and  agencies  engaged 
in  the  production  of  the  Bible,  there  was  a  Divine  power  spe- 
cially directing  and  determining,  to  the  last  jot  and  tittle,  its 
form  and  structure,  shall  the  fact  which  does  not  disprove 
such  an  interposition  in  the  world's  history,  disprove  'it  in  the 
Scriptures  ? 

But  we  go  further  and  affirm,  that  this  state  of  facts  was 
more  imperatively  demanded  in  the  case  of  the  Scriptures 
than  in  any  of  the  others.  Why  was  God  made  manifest  in 
the  flesh  ?  Obviously  because  the  great  purposes  designed  to 
be  effected  in  and  for  the  human  race  by  the  incarnation,  de- 
manded that  the  Divine  should  be  manifested  through  the  hu- 
man, and  not  through  the  angelic,  or  any  new  form  of  created 


13 

personal  existence.  Now  the  very  same  necessities  demanded 
likewise  that  the  revelation  of  the  Divine  to  man  in  thought, 
emotion  and  word,  should  be  made  through  human  minds  and 
human  hearts.  And  that  it  may  come  in  contact  with  human 
nature  at  all  its  points,  it  must  not  be  made  through  but  one 
man,  or  one  class  of  men,  but  through  such  a  variety  of  men 
as  would  enable  the  Divine  afflatus  to  breathe  through  the 
whole  gamut  of  human  sympathy,  emotion  aud  character, 
from  the  lowliest  fisherman  of  Galilee,  and  the  humblest 
herdsman  of  Tekoah,  to  the  loftiest  sage  of  Egypt,  the  subli- 
mest  bard  of  Judea,  and  the  subtlest  logician  of  the  school  of 
Gamaliel.  And  the  same  reasons  that  made  it  needful  that  he 
who  was  "  God  over  all,  blessed  forever,"  should  manifest 
himself  in  human  form  in  the  "seed  of  David,"  made  it  also 
necessary  that  the  revelation  of  the  same  God  in  word,  should 
be  through  this  same  wondrous  Hebrew  race.  Were  the  hu- 
man race  all  moulded  in  precisely  the  same  matrix  of  charac- 
ter, thought,  emotion  and  external  position,  this  objection  to 
the  Bible  as  coming  directly  from  the  hand  of  God,  might 
possibly  lie.  But  with  all  the  varieties  and  inequalities  of 
human  condition,  it  is  as  absurd  as  to  challenge  the  Divine 
origin  of  the  wondrous  vesture  of  atmosphere  that  wraps  the 
round  earth,  because  at  one  time  it  lies  thin  and  cold  on  the 
mountain  top,  at  another  dense  and  heavy  in  the  valley :  at 
one  time  hangs  red  and  fiery  over  the  far-stretching  desert,  at 
another  cool  and  transparent  over  the  dewy  landscape  of 
spring  :  and  at  one  time  sleeps  softly  and  pulselessly  in  the 
still  calm,  and  at  another  rushes  wildly  and  fearfully  in  the 
terrible  hurricane.  Variety  marks  God's  handiwork  in  nature, 
and  cannot  therefore  disprove  it  in  revelation. 

The  defective  morality  of  the  Old  Testament  is  objected  to 
its  plenary  inspiration. 

If  this  means  that  the  standard  of  actual  attainment  in  prac- 
tical ethics  was  lower  under  the  Old  Testament  than  under 
the  New,  we  concede  it,  but  this  fact  does  not  touch  the  ques- 
tion of  the  inspiration  of  these  books.     They  record  the  pre- 


14 

cise  facts  of  the  case  with  infallible  accuracy;  and  on  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  record  we  can  rely,  for  the  very  reason  that  it 
is  an  inspired  document.  If  however  the  objection  means  that 
the  standard  of  requisition  was  lower,  we  meet  it  with  an  em- 
phatic denial.  Christ  gave  no  moral  law  that  was  not  found 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  corrected  nothing  of  what  was  said 
in  the  old  time  but  the  corrupt  glosses  and  traditions  of  the 
fathers.  The  evil  conduct  of  Noah  and  David  are  recorded 
in  warning  and  condemnation  in  the  Old  Testament  precisely 
as  we  have  that  of  Judas  and  Peter  in  the  New.  And  in  re- 
gard to  acts  and  customs  which  are  there  approved,  such  as 
are  not  and  ought  not  to  be  permitted  now,  we  affirm  that  un- 
der the  particular  circumstances  of  the  case,  they  were  per- 
fectly consistent  with  the  immutable  principles  of  morality. 
The  Levirate  law,  the  law  of  the  avenger  of  blood,  the  wa- 
ter of  jealousy,  the  judicial  rule  of  the  lex  talionis,  and  simi- 
lar institutions,  had  their  origin  in  that  partly  nomadic  and  im- 
perfect state  of  social  life  from  which  the  Hebrew  tribes 
sprang,  and  were  sanctioned  and  regulated  because  it  was  bet- 
ter to  allow  them  temporarily  to  exist  than  violently  to  abol- 
ish them ;  and  existing  by  consent  of  society  and  permission 
of  God,  they  violated  no  principle  of  morality.  The  spoiling 
of  the  Egyptians,  the  extermination  of  the  Canaan ites,  and 
similar  acts,  were  done  by  the  command  of  God ;  were  right 
then,  and  if  commanded  by  God  would  not  be  wrong  now. 
The  rights  of  life  and  property  are  not  absolute  in  man,  but 
only  contingent  on  the  will  of  God,  and  He  may  take  them 
away,  either  by  a  pestilence  and  a  whirlwind,  or  by  the  squad- 
rons of  an  invading  army.  Men  in  such  cases  are  but  the  exe- 
cutioners, and  surely  it  will  not  be  denied  that  the  right  to 
dispose  of  human  life  and  property  according  to  His  will,  is 
vested  in  the  Creator  and  Sovereign  of  all,  in  the  highest  and 
most  absolute  sense.  In  all  this  then  there  is  nothing  that 
contradicts  a  plenary  verbal  inspiration. 

The  inconsistency  of  the  Bible  with  the  results  of  modern 
scientific  research  is  also  objected. 


16 

There  is  usually  much  inattention  or  much  disingenuous- 
ness  evinced  in  pressing  tliis  argument.  It  is  affirmed  with 
great  triumph  that  the  writers  of  the  Bible  were  ignorant  of 
many  of  the  facts  of  natural  science,  and  hence  have  used 
language  in  regard  to  the  phenomena  of  the  physical  world  to 
which  they  attached  conceptions  scientifically  incorrect.  This 
is  deemed  sufficient  to  prove  that  they  did  not  possess  a  ple- 
nary inspiration.  We  grant  that  these  writers  often  used  lan- 
guage to  which  they  may  have  attached  notions  in  their  own 
minds,  which,  owing  to  their  ignorance  of  natural  science, 
were  scientifically  false.  But  we  affirm  that  this  language, 
when  fairly  interpreted,  does  not  assert  these  scientific  errors, 
and  that,  as  we  shall  subsequently  show,  their  remarkable  pre- 
servation from  the  declaration  of  scientific  error  is  one  of  the 
most  signal  indications  of  the  superintending  inspiration  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Nor  is  this  peculiar  to  the  language  that  re- 
fers to  natural  phenomena.  The  writers  of  Scripture  often 
used  language  the  real  and  full  signification  of  which  they 
did  not  and  could  not  understand.  The  apostle  Peter  directly 
affirms  this  fact  when  he  states  (1  Pet.  1:  10-12)  that  after 
the  ancient  prophets  wrote  their  prophecies  they  sat  down  re- 
verently to  study  their  meaning,  "  searching  what  or  what  man- 
ner of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did  sig- 
nify, when  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and 
the  glory  that  should  follow :  unto  whom  it  was  revealed^ 
that  not  unto  themselves,  but  unto  us  they  did  minister  the 
things  which  are  now  reported  unto  you  by  them  that  have 
preached  the  Gospel  unto  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down 
from  Heaven."  When  Malachi  declared  that  Elijah  must 
come,  we  cannot  suppose  that  he  thought  of  John  the  Baptist. 
And  when  David  declared  "  they  parted  my  garments  among 
them,  and  on  my  vesture  did  they  cast  lots,"  we  cannot  be- 
lieve that  he  saw  the  gambling  of  the  Roman  soldiers  on  Cal- 
vary. But  in  these  and  similar  cases,  the  writers  used  lan- 
guage attaching  certain  conceptions  to  it,  which  we  now  see, 
not  only  fairly  bears  another  signification,  but  was  actually 


16 

designed  to  have  such  a  meaning,  and  hence  we  give  it  that 
interpretation.  So  we  affirm  that  in  precise  accordance  with 
this  general  principle  which  runs  through  the  whole  Bible, 
Moses,  Job,  Joshua  and  David  used  language  referring  to  na- 
tural phenomena,  to  which  they  attached  conceptions  corres- 
ponding with  the  cosmogony  and  astronomy  of  the  age  ;  but 
we  contend  that  in  no  case  have  they  been  allowed  to  assert 
the  truth  of  these  scientific  misconceptions.  They  either 
used  language  that  is  susceptible  of  an  interpretation  confor- 
mable to  the  truth,  or  they  used  the  popular  forms  of  speech 
that  describe  things  as  they  seem  to  be,  and  not  as  they  are. 

We  are  flippantly  told  that  Joshua  talks  of  the  sun  stand- 
ing still ;  that  David  speaks  of  a  Hades,  which  he  supposed  to 
be  under  the  earth  ;  that  Paul  speaks  of  a  third  Heaven  which 
he  supposed  to  be  just  beyond  the  stellar  dome;  and  that  all 
the  writers  on  the  work  of  redemption  speak  of  the  earth  as 
possessing  an  importance  which  astronomy  shows  it  does  not 
possess  in  the  universe. 

Bat  we  ask  the  objector,  does  not  every  treatise  on  practi- 
cal astronomy  speak  of  the  sun  rising,  and  setting,  and  cross- 
ing the  line  of  the  equinox,  when  in  strictness  these  things 
are  not  so  ?  But  is  any  one  ever  deceived  ?  Is  not  this  use 
of  language  an  absolute  necessity  unless  we  would  talk  non- 
sense or  confusion  ?  And  whatever  David  thought,  does  he 
anywhere  assert  that  Hades  is  under  the  earth  ?  Does  he 
ever  do  more  than  use  language  intelligible  to  his  contempo- 
raries ?  And  does  Paul  anywhere  assert  that  Heaven  is  a  mere 
third  story  in  the  great  ascending  circles  of  the  creation?  If 
then,  to  show  those  to  whom  he  wrote  that  he  meant,  not  the 
atmospheric  or  the  stellar  Heaven,  but  the  Paradise  of  God, 
he  used  the  common  designation,  tJie  third  Heavens,  did  he 
affirm  any  proposition  that  Lord  Rosse's  telescope  shows  to  be 
untrue  ?  And  when  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  redemption 
gives  the  earth  an  importance  of  position  that  is  not  assigned 
to  it  by  astronomy,  does  it  follow  that  these  representations 
are  mutually  contradictory  ?     Does  not  history  give  to  Ther- 


17 

mopylaB,  Actium  and  Waterloo  an  importance  that  geography 
does  not  ?  But  are  these  representations,  though  both  correct, 
in  any  real  contradiction  ?  Would  not  any  man  be  called  a 
fool  who  would  question  the  statements  of  history  as  to  the 
stupendous  influence  that  the  scenes  there  enacted  have  had 
on  the  world's  destiny,  because  these  spots  are  not  as  large  as 
many  a  gentleman's  plantation  ?  When,  therefore,  the  Bible 
asserts  that  the  earth  is  the  very  Thermopylae  of  the  universe, 
shall  this  same  objection  be  flaunted  in  our  faces,  as  a  mark  of 
superior  wisdom  and  scientific  culture  ? 

Suppose  a  fragment  were  found  in  some  writer  anterior  to 
the  age  of  Hesiod,  asserting  that  the  sky  which  hung  over 
the  north  pole  was  not  upheld  by  the  walls  of  a  crystal  sphere 
as  some  contended,  but  was  suspended  over  the  void  of  empty 
space,  and  that  the  earth  itself  was  self-poised  over  nothing, 
would  not  such  a  passage  be  triumphantly  adduced  by  the 
scholar  as  a  most  amazing  anticipation  of  astronomical  science 
in  later  times  ?  And  yet  when  we  find  in  a  writer  older  than 
the  very  language  of  Greece,  the  sublime  couplet, 

"  He  spreadeth  the  north  over  the  empty  space, 
And  hangeth  the  earth  upon  nothing:"* 

such  a  fragment  is  skipped  over  with  a  contemptuous  fling  at 
Hebrew  cosmogony. 

The  same  unfairness  appears  in  the  objections  drawn  from 
geology.  The  Bible  nowhere  affirms  that  the  matter  of  the 
world  is  but  six  thousand  years  old.  On  the  contrary,  when 
it  speaks  of  the  earth  as  compared  with  the  race  of  man  that 
lives  upon  it,  it  represents  the  one  as  the  fitting  type  of  that 
high  and  solitary  One  who  is  from  everlasting  to  everlasting, 
while  the  other  is  as  the  grass  which  in  the  morning  flourish- 
eth  and  groweth  up,  and  in  the  evening  is  cut  down  and  with- 
ereth.  It  simply  aflirms  of  the  Heavens  and  the  earth  that  in 
the  beginning  they  were  created  by  God.  Does  geology  con- 
tradict this  ?     It  also  aflirms  that  about  six  thousand  years  ago, 

*  Job  26  :  7. 


18 

the  earth  received  in  six  days  substantially  its  present  arrange- 
ment, from  a  pre-existent  state  of  chaotic  confusion,  and  it 
describes  this  sublime  scene  with  graphic  and  dramatic  beauty, 
as  it  would  have  appeared  to  a  spectator  standing  on  the  earth 
and  gazing  on  these  mighty  changes  as  they  went  forward. 
Does  geology  contradict  this,  or  show  it  to  be  impossible  ?  It 
asserts  that  some  four  thousand  years  ago  there  was  an  uni- 
versal deluge  of  waters,  miraculously  and  judicially  spread 
over  the  earth.  Now  even  if  the  flood-marks  that  were  once 
pointed  out  as  traces  of  the  deluge,  may  be  explained  on  other 
grounds,  is  there  anything  in  geological  researches  that  con- 
tradicts the  testimony  of  history  and  tradition  in  regard  to 
this  great  and  awful  fact  ?  Does  geology  do  anything  more 
than  leave  it  an  open  question  ?  Whilst  then  we  admire  this 
young  Titan  of  the  sciences  as  it  upheaves  the  foundations  of 
the  earth,  and  shows  us  the  mighty  corner  stones  of  its  struc- 
ture ;  and  whilst  we  are  grateful  to  it  for  its  contributions  to 
natural  and  even  remotely  to  revealed  theology ;  yet  when  it 
leaves  its  pickaxe  and  hammer  among  the  rocks,  and  attempts 
on  some  Pelion  or  Ossa  of  gigantic  speculation  to  scale  the 
battlements  of  God's  own  council  chamber,  and  impeach  the 
fidelity  of  a  record  with  which  it  has  legitimately  nothing  to 
do,  we  must  meet  it  with  the  stern  words  that  came  to  the 
startled  Emir  of  Uz,  from  the  dark  throat  of  the  storm — 

"  Who  is  this  that  darkeneth  counsel  by  words  without  knowledge  ? 
Gird  up  now  thy  loins  like  a  man ; 
I  will  put  questions  to  thee,  and  do  thou  inform  me, 
Where  wast  thou  when  I  founded  the  earth  ? 
Declare,  if  thou  hast  knowledge  ! 

Who  then  fixed  the  measure  of  it  ?     For  thou  knowest! 
Who  stretched  the  line  upon  it  ? 
Upon  what  are  its  foundations  settled  ? 
Or  who  laid  its  corner  stone  ? 
When  the  morning  stars  sang  together, 
And  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy  ? 
Who  shut  up  the  sea  with  doors 
In  its  bursting  forth  as  from  the  womb  ? 
When  I  made  the  cloud  its  garment, 
And  swathed  it  in  thick  darkness  ? 


19 

I  measured  out  for  it  my  limits, 

And  fixed  its  bars  and  doors ; 

And  said,  thus  far  shalt  thou  come,  but  no  further, 

And  here  shall  thy  proud  waves  be  stayed  !"* 

Whilst  Ave  know  the  dignified  and  reverent  response  that 
will  be  made  by  the  truly  philosophical  geologist  to  this  sub- 
lime challenge ;  whilst  we  rejoice  to  meet  in  the  Bucklands, 
the  Pye  Smiths,  the  Millers,  and  the  Hitchcocks,  men  not 
more  eminent  for  their  love  of  God's  works  than  their  re- 
verence for  God's  word ;  and  whilst  we  freely  acquit  this  no- 
ble science  of  any  antagonism  or  hostility  to  revelation  ho- 
nestly interpreted,  yet  we  also  know  that  the  stern  rebuke  it 
conveys  is  richly  deserved  by  the  sciolist  and  the  smatterer, 
who  ignorant  or  forgetful  of  the  legitimate  province  of  human 
science  betakes  himself  to  world-building  and  world-dreaming 
about  "  the  natural  history  of  creation." 

We  cannot  go  into  any  further  detail  in  meeting  this  class 
of  objections,  having  said  enough  to  indicate  the  general  prin- 
ciples on  which  all  the  alleged  discrepancies  of  scientific  truth 
with  revelation,  may  be  fully  and  fairly  met  and  set  aside. 
When  the  Bible  is  fairly  interpreted,  there  is  no  such  discre- 
pancy with  any  established  fact  of  science.  The  fancies  of 
interpreters  and  the  fancies  of  philosophers  may  conflict,  but 
fancies  are  not  facts,  and  neither  science  nor  revelation  should 
be  held  accountable  for  the  follies  of  their  friends.  God 
speaking  in  His  works,  can  never  contradict  God  speaking  in 
His  word,  and  we  need  give  ourselves  no  anxiety  about  any 
possible  inconsistency  between  the  two  utterances.  The 
watchful  and  hostile  jealousy  with  Avhich  science  has  some- 
times been  regarded  by  good  men,  as  something  fraught  with 
possible  danger  to  the  truth  of  revelation,  is  as  impolitic  as  it 
is  unreasonable.  Let  the  students  of  each  explore  their  own 
department  without  any  jealous  or  suspicious  reference  to  the 
other,  and  their  results  in  the  end,  when  clearly  reached,  will 
be  found  as  perfectly  consistent  as  the  laws  of  astronomy  and 

•Job  33  :  l-Il.    Barnes' translation. 


20 

the  facts  of  geology;  like  them,  the  one  is  of  Heaven  and  the 
other  of  earth,  but  both  the  interpreters  of  Him  who  has  made 
both  Heaven  and  earth. 

We  do  not  affirm  that  every  thing  in  the  Bible  is  true,  but 
we  do  affirm  that  every  thing  which  the  Bible  says  to  be  true, 
is  true.  We  do  not  affirm  that  all  the  opinions  set  forth,  and 
all  the  acts  recorded  there  are  right ;  but  we  do  affirm  that  these 
opinions  were  held  and  these  acts  done,  precisely  as  they  are 
represented.  We  do  not  affirm  that  Moses  understood  geolo- 
gy, David  the  Copernican  system,  or  Paul  the  categories  and 
predicables  of  logic ;  but  we  do  affirm  that  neither  Moses  nor 
David  have  declared  any  thing  to  be  scientifically  trae,  which 
is  scientifically  false ;  and  that  if  Paul  sometimes  reaches  his 
conclusion  by  one  gigantic  bound,  instead  of  climbing  the 
slow  ladder  of  an  authorized  syllogism,  he  yet  never  reaches 
a  conclusion  that  is  untrue,  or  asserts  a  premise  that  is  unte- 
nable. And  if  the  grinders  of  Kant's  categories  say  that  they 
cannot  understand  some  of  Paul's  reasonings,  and  that  they 
seem  to  them  palpably  illogical,  we  have  only  to  remind  them 
of  the  gruft'  response  of  the  old  literary  Leviathan  to  a  similar 
objection,  "  Sir,  I  am  bound  to  furnish  you  with  arguments, 
not  brains." 

It  is  affirmed  that  the  writers  of  the  Bible  do  not  claim 
such  a  power  as  we  ascribe  to  them.  If  by  this  is  meant, 
that  each  writer  does  not  in  express  and  formal  terms  always 
announce,  that  he  is  commissioned  to  write  by  the  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  grant  it.  Suppose  that  they  had  made 
this  constant  reiteration  of  plenary  authority,  would  it  not 
then  have  been  objected,  that  this  anxious  solicitude  to  assert 
these  pretensions  implied  a  secret  conviction  that  there  was 
too  much  ground  to  question  them  ?  Is  not  this  uneasy  as- 
sertion of  Divine  authority,  such  as  we  see  in  the  Koran  or 
the  book  of  Mormon,  one  of  the  recognised  marks  of  impos- 
ture ?  If  this  feature  had  been  found  in  the  Bible  as  the 
objection  demands,  would  not  the  philosophic  eye  have  de- 
tected in  it  the  want  of  that  grand  and  lofty  indifference, 


that  feeling  of  tlie  self-evidencing  character  of  their  claims, 
that  is  the  characteristic  of  all  true  power  and  all  Divine  im- 
pulse ?  Does  every  message  of  a  President  or  a  King  contain 
a  formal  statement  of  the  right  by  which  he  thus  speaks  ? 
Does  every  act  and  record  of  a  legislature  contain  the  com- 
missions and  certificates  of  election  by  virtue  of  which  its 
members  enact  laws  ?  Does  every  paper  of  an  ambassador 
contain  a  formal  assertion  of  his  plenipotentiary  powers? 
Would  not  such  a  thing  be  either  suspicious  or  ridiculous  ? 
Why  then  is  it  demanded  of  the  writers  of  the  Bible  ? 

Do  you  say  that  it  is  unreasonable  to  ask  you  to  receive 
these  books  as  authoritative,  without  some  authentication  of 
their  authority  ?  We  grant  it ;  but  reply  that  it  is  equally  un- 
reasonable to  demand  this  particular  form  of  authentication, 
and  be  satisfied  with  no  other,  when  it  is  freely  dispensed 
with  in  analogous  cases.  Let  the  authority  of  a  man  to  write, 
speak  or  act,  be  distinctly  recognized  and  sanctioned  by  those 
competent  to  decide  on  his  qualifications,  and  whether  he  as- 
serts it  or  not,  we  are  bound  to  admit  it  on  the  endorsement 
of  these  competent  judges.  If  then  these  writers  have  some- 
times asserted  positively  that  they  were  speaking  the  very 
words  of  God,  using  such  formulas  as  "  thus  saith  the  Lord," 
&c. ;  if,  in  other  cases,  they  have  asserted  it  impliedly  by  the 
awful  authority  they  claim  for  the  words  they  utter,  and  the 
terrible  sanctions  they  assert  as  belonging  to  them  ;  if,  in  other 
cases,  an  authentication  was  given  them  by  those  whose  cir- 
cumstances enabled  them  to  decide  upon  the  proofs  of  their 
commission ;  if  the  entire  volume  was  regarded  by  them  as 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  designated  by  specific  titles, 
such  as  the  oracles  of  God,  the  Scriptures,  &c.,  &c.,  the  ab- 
sence of  this  formal  claim  in  each  particular  case,  cannot  be 
held  to  disprove  the  alleged  inspiration  of  the  Spirit.  That 
the  marks  above  named  are  found  in  all  the  canonical  books, 
is  fully  shown  in  any  ordinary  treatise  on  the  Canon  of 
Scripture. 


22 

But,  if  the  absence  of  a  formal  claim  to  a  verbal  inspiration 
be  an  argument  against  its  existence,  a  similar  omission  as  to 
any  other  kind  of  inspiration  must  be  equally  conclusive 
against  its  existence.  Now  it  so  happens,  that  the  writers  of 
the  Scriptures  in  no  instance  claim  any  such  inspiration  as 
Mr.  M.  refers  to  them,  nor  is  it  even  pretended,  that  they  have 
ever  done  so.  If  then  this  alleged  absence  of  claim,  (which 
we  do  not  admit,)  disproved  the  verbal  theory,  much  more 
must  it  disprove  the  one  brought  in  its  place,  for  the  wildest 
dreamer  has  never  pretended,  that  the  writers  of  the  Scrip- 
tures claimed  to  be  simply  enlightened  as  to  their  intuitive 
consciousness.  This  objection  then,  if  it  proves  any  thing, 
proves  too  much,  for  it  strikes  Mr.  M.'s  theory  even  more  fa- 
tally than  it  does  that  of  plenary  verbal  inspiration. 

But  the  most  extraordinary  position  taken  by  Mr.  Morell  is, 
that  the  primitive  church  did  not  regard  these  books  as  ver- 
bally inspired.  This  is  a  most  marvellous  assertion  in  the  di- 
rect view  of  the  very  superstition  with  which  many  in  the 
primitive  church  regarded  the  mere  words  of  the  Scripture  ; 
the  mysteries  that  they  often  found  in  the  very  letters  of  Holy 
Writ,  and  the  controversies  that  existed  as  to  the  right  of  some 
books  to  be  admitted  into  the  Canon.  We  cannot  enter  into 
the  proof  of  this  position  in  detail,  but  must  be  content  with 
referring  to  sources  where  that  proof  is  spread  out  at  length. 
Dr.  Rudelbach,  a  German,  has  collected  the  testimonies  to 
this  point  with  great  industry  and  patience.  And  to  those  to 
whom  this  work  is  not  accessible,  we  may  recommend  Paley's 
Evidences,  Lardner's  Credibility  ;  Daille  on  the  Fathers,  book 

2,  chap.  2  ;  Jeremy  Taylor's  Ductor  Dubitantium,  book  2,  ch. 

3,  rule  14 ;  Bingham's  Antiquities,  book  14,  ch.  3 ;  or  Whit- 
by's Prefaces  in  his  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament.  In 
any  of  these,  enough  will  be  found  to  show  that  this  assertion 
is  grossly  incorrect. 

Such  then  is  the  defence  that  is  set  up  for  this  theory  of 
inspiration,  which  after  all  is  not  so  much  a  defence  as  an  at- 
tack.    It  is  remarkable,  that  in  accordance  with  the  ancient 


23 

tactics  on  this  question,  the  only  plea  set  up  for  the  new 
theory  is  an  assault  upon  the  old,  as  if  the  overthrow  of  the 
one  was  the  necessary  establishment  of  the  other.  As  then 
we  have  seen  these  objections  to  be  unfounded,  the  old 
theory  remains  unharmed,  whilst  the  new  one,  by  its  own 
chosen  mode  of  warfare,  is  defeated.  Here  then  we  might 
pause,  but  that  the  truth  may  be  triumphantly  vindicated,  we 
shall  take  a  new  position  and  pass  from  the  attitude  of  de- 
fence to  that  of  attack.  We  turn  now  to  the  positive  evidence 
against  this  theory. 

The  first  objection  we  urge  against  this  theory  is.  that  it  is 
a  mere  figment,  invented  without  any  reference  to  the  facts  to 
be  explained,  or  the  phenomena  to  be  elucidated. 

Sidney  Smith  once  wittily  objected  to  reading  a  book  be- 
fore reviewing  it,  because  it  had  such  a  tendency  to  prejudice 
a  man.  One  would  be  almost  disposed  to  think  that  Mr.  M. 
had  taken  the  advice  of  the  laughter-loving  Canon  of  St. 
Paul's.  He  undertakes  to  describe  the  subjective  condition  of 
inspired  men,  and  yet  not  once  does  he  refer  to  the  account 
given  by  these  men  themselves  of  their  state  of  mind.  He 
professes  to  furnish  a  theory  that  shall  explain  all  the  facts  of 
the  case,  yet  never  once  alludes  to  those  facts  in  constructing 
this  theory.  He  assumes  a  certain  psychology,  aud  because 
he  cannot  find  in  its  ordinary  workings  such  a  phenomenon 
as  verbal  inspiration,  he  denies  its  existence,  in  the  very  face 
of  the  reiterated  affirmation  that  this  is  not  one  of  the  ordi- 
nary, but  one  of  the  extraordinary,  phases  of  the  human  soul. 
He  forms  his  theory  and  then  tells  us  that  if  the  facts  are  not 
conformable  to  it,  they  ought  to  be,  and  gives  himself  no  fur- 
ther trouble  with  them.  This  mode  of  procedure  in  construct- 
ing any. hypothesis  is  unphilosophical,  but  in  framing  a  theory 
on  facts  so  unique  and  solemn  as  these,  it  is  unpardonable. 

But  it  is  not  only  constructed  without  reference  to  the  facts 
to  be  explained,  but  also  in  direct  inconsistency  with  them. 

It  asserts  that  inspiration  belongs  to  the  writers  of  Scripture, 
but  not  to  the  Scripture  itself.     This  assertion  is  flatly  con- 


tradicted  in  the  account  given  by  the  writers  themselves  of 
the  matter.  2  Tim.  3  :  16,  "All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  cor- 
rection, for  instruction  in  righteousness."  Here  it  is  asserted 
that  the  writing  is  inspired,  and  not  simply  the  writers,  and  a 
writing  can  be  inspired  only  by  a  verbal  inspiration.  The 
theopneusty  is  affirmed  of  the  Scripture  and  not  of  the  wri- 
ters. If  it  be  asked  what  is  meant  by  this  theopneusty,  or 
inspiration  of  God,  we  are  answered  in  2  Pet.  1 :  21,  "  Holy 
men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 
The  words  of  Scripture  then  were  the  result  of  the  action  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  minds  of  the  writers,  and  therefore, 
the  subjects  of  inspiration.  To  place  this  beyond  all  ques- 
tion, the  same  Apostle  asserts,  (1  Pet.  1  :  10-12,)  that  these 
men  did  not  always  know  the  full  significance  of  the  words 
they  were  directed  to  use,  but  searched  into  their  meaning, 
because  these  words  were  intended  rather  for  a  later  age  of 
the  Church  than  for  that  which  first  received  them.  And  this 
language  is  sanctioned  by  our  Lord  himself  when  he  affirms, 
Malt.  22  :  43,  that  David  spake  by  the  Holy  Ghost  when  in- 
diting the  Psalms  ;  and  extended  to  the  whole  Jewish  Canon, 
when  he  appeals  to  the  Scriptures  on  every  question  concern- 
ing truth  and  duty,  stating  that  they  cannot  be  broken, 
(John  10  :  34,35);  that  they  are  an  infallible  tribunal  of  ap- 
peal in  every  question  as  to  God's  will,  (Matt.  19  :  4-6 ;  John 
5  :  39,)  thus  sanctioning  the  doctrine  of  the  Jewish  Church 
as  to  these  writings,  that  they  are  truly  the  word  of  God. 
And  this  verbal  inspiration  is  affirmed  by  our  Lord  yet  more 
emphatically,  when  we  find  him  at  times  basing  important 
arguments  on  the  mere  and  apparently  casual  use  of  a  word, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  Matt.  22 : 
32.  It  is  also  implied,  where  he  directs  the  Jews  to  searcli  the 
Scriptures,  as  a  perfect  standard  of  truth,  and  declares  that 
whilst  heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  not  one  jot  or  tittle 
of  them  shall  ever  pass  away  unfulfilled.  These  strong  af- 
firmations it  must  be  noted  were  made  not  of  the  mental  state 


25 

of  the  writers,  but  of  their  writings,  thus  endorsing  the  claim 
set  up  for  these  writings  as  the  word  of  God,  the  oracles  of 
God,  and  the  writings  that  stood  apart  and  sacred  from  all 
others  as  the  infallible  standard  of  truth  and  duty.  This  high 
claim  was  extended  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New,  by 
Peter,  when  he  classed  the  writings  of  Paul  with  the  other 
Scriptures,  2  Pet.  3  :  16.  How  far  this  Divine  superinten- 
dence and  authority  extended,  is  explained  by  Paul  when  he 
says,  1  Cor.  2  :  13,  •'  Which  things  we  speak  not  in  the  words 
which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
teacheth  ;"  and  also,  1  Thess.  2  :  13,  "When  ye  received  the 
word  of  God  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it  not  as  the 
word  of  men,  but  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God."  And 
lest  this  should  be  referred  to  his  oral  rather  than  his  written 
instructions,  he  expressly  affirms  in  2  Cor.  10  :  11,  and  2 
Thess.  2  :  15,  that  they  are  of  equal  authority.  When  there- 
fore, it  is  affirmed  that  all  Scripture  is  inspired ;  that  the  very 
words  are  taught  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  when  Paul  explains  in 
what  sense  he  uses  this  language,  as  to  his  own  writings,  and 
Peter  extends  this  sense  to  all  the  rest,  by  classifying  Paul's 
writings  with  "  the  other  Scriptures,"  can  there  be  a  more  au- 
dacious misstatement,  than  that  which  alleges  that  these  men 
do  not  claim  for  their  writings  the  plenary  verbal  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

This  theory  is  contradicted  by  the  authority  which  these 
writers  claim  for  their  writings. 

A  clear  and  broad  distinction  is  made  between  these  and  all 
other  writings,  declaring  the  one  to  be  the  word  of  man,  the 
other  the  word  of  God.  Many  of  them  prefix  to  their  state- 
ments the  formula,  "  thus  saith  the  Lord,"  which,  if  it  means 
any  thing,  must  mean  that  the  words  they  were  about  to  utter, 
were  not  theirs,  but  God's.  Hence  they  claim  tlie  most  awful 
authority  for  every  thing  that  they  say,  and  demand  our  uncon- 
ditional belief  under  the  most  terrific  penalties.  They  say, 
"  We  are  of  God.  He  that  knoweth  God,  heareth  us,"  1  John 
4:6;  "  We  command  you  brethren,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord 


26 

Jesus  Christ,"  2  Thess.  3:6;  "He  that  despiseth,  despiseth 
not  man  but  God,"  1  Thess.  2  :  13.  If  an  angel  from  heaven 
preach  any  other  gospel,  let  him  be  accursed.  Here  is  an 
authority  the  most  fearful  known  to  men,  claimed  to  challenge 
belief.  Belief  is  the  assent  of  the  mind  to  a  proposition. 
A  proposition  must  be  set  forth  in  words.  To  demand  belief 
therefore,  under  sanctions  so  terrible,  is  to  claim  an  authority 
for  their  words  which  can  only  be  explained  on  the  theory  of 
their  plenary  verbal  inspiration. 

This  theory  is  contradicted  by  the  specific  promises  of  Christ 
made  to  his  disciples. 

Every  man  who  has  a  new  discovery  in  science  to  an- 
nounce to  the  world,  takes  care  to  secure  such  a  vehicle  of 
transmission  as  shall,  with  all  possible  accuracy,  declare  pre- 
cisely what  his  discoveries  are.  Every  government  which  has 
any  great  transaction  to  proclaim,  whether  it  be  a  law,  a  trea- 
ty, or  an  amnesty  on  specified  conditions,  uses  great  care  in 
securing  correctness  in  its  records,  that  these  records  may 
clearly  and  certainly  set  forth  the  precise  facts  which  are  ne- 
cessary to  be  known,  in  a  form  that  will  be  trustworthy  and 
reliable.  Were  a  government  to  be  careless  on  this  point,' it 
would  be  justly  chargeable  with  a  gross  and  criminal  indiffer- 
ence to  the  interests  and  rights  of  its  subjects.  It  was  justly 
regarded  as  one  of  the  most  atrocious  marks  of  tj'ranny  and 
injustice  in  a  Roman  emperor,  that  he  enacted  laws  and  caused 
them  to  be  hung  up  so  high  on  pillars  that  no  one  could  with 
certainty  and  distinctness  make  out  their  precise  requisitions. 

Now  if  it  be  true  that  there  are  great  discoveries  of  life  and 
immortality  to  be  brought  to  light  in  the  gospel,  is  it  credible 
that  no  special  arrangements  would  be  made  to  secure  the  re- 
cord of  these  discoveries  in  language  that  will  not  deceive  or 
mislead  ?  If  the  government  of  God  has  laws  to  proclaim, 
treaties  of  reconciliation  to  propose,  and  amnesties  of  pardon 
on  certain  conditions  to  offer,  would  it  not  be  a  refinement  of 
cruelty  beyond  that  of  Caligula,  to  require  us  to  conform  to 
these  high  transactions  on  peril  of  eternal  penalties,  and  yet 


27 

make  no  arrangements  by  which  we  should  certainly  know 
what  they  were  ?  Would  it  not  be  monstrous  to  suppose  that 
these  awful  utterances  of  the  Eternal  voices  were  flung  forth 
to  the  winds,  with  less  care  to  secure  the  certain  accuracy  of 
their  record  than  was  given  to  the  leaves  that  came  forth  from 
the  cave  of  the  CumoBan  Sibyl  ?  The  supposition  is  incredi- 
ble, yet  it  is  the  precise  supposition  required  by  the  theory  un- 
der discussion.  But  what  are  the  facts  of  the  case  ?  Did  Je- 
sus Christ,  after  such  unspeakable  toil  and  agony  to  work  out 
a  plan  of  salvation  for  man,  make  no  arrangements  for  its  se- 
cure record  and  transmission  to  those  for  whom  it  was  inten- 
ded ?  Did  he  do  even  less  than  Caligula,  who  at  least  caused 
his  enactments  to  be  written?  Did  he  treat  this  most  won- 
drous of  all  the  productions  of  creative  might,  as  the  ostrich 
treats  her  egg,  leaving  its  preservation  to  the  oversight  of 
mere  chance  ?  No  !  He  promised  a  specific  Divine  assistance 
in  communicating  this  religion  to  men.  "  The  Holy  Ghost 
shall  teach  you  what  you  ought  to  say."  "  The  Holy  Ghost 
shall  teach  you  all  things."  "He  shall  guide  you  into  all 
truth,  for  He  shall  not  speak  of  Himself,  but  whatsoever  He 
shall  hear,  that  shall  He  speak,  and  He  vsuU  show  you  things 
to  come."  Luke  12:  12;  John  14 :  26  ;  16  :  13  ;  15  :  26, 
27,  &c.  In  these  and  kindred  passages,  Christ  promises  to  the 
disciples,  (1.)  That  the  Holy  Ghost  should  be  given  to  them. 
(2.)  That  He  would  suggest  to  them  the  very  words  they 
must  utter,  so  that  even  premeditation  was  not  necessary. 
(3.)  That  as  conversations  were  to  be  stated  which  no  ordi- 
nary memory  could  retain,  and  facts  announced  which  no  or- 
dinary sagacity  could  predict,  their  minds  should  be  certified  as 
to  the  past,  the  present  and  the  future.  (4.)  That  as  the  result 
of  this,  their  words  were  deserving  of  the  most  unquestioning 
faith  as  infallibly  true. 

Now  we  care  not  how  you  limit  this  promise,  still  it  ex- 
plains the  nature  of  inspiration  in  a  way  that  overthrows  this 
theory.  Even  if  limited  to  the  specific  case  in  reference  to 
which  it  was  made,  it  affirms  the  extension  of  inspiration  to 


28 

the  very  words  of  the  inspired  men,  giving  those  words  a  Di- 
vine, and  therefore,  an  infallible  authority.  This  is  in  direct 
contradiction  of  the  theory  under  discussion. 

But  to  suppose  its  limitation  to  one  specific  case,  is  to  stul- 
tify our  Lord  in  the  arrangements  he  made  for  the  promulga- 
tion of  his  laws,  and  the  extension  of  his  kingdom ;  as  well 
as  to  charge  him  with  the  most  heartless  indifference  to  those 
for  whom  he  showed  the  highest  possible  regard  and  interest, 
in  the  highest  possible  way.  It  would  be  to  suppose  the  giv- 
ing of  Divine  aid  when  his  followers  needed  it  least,  and 
withholding  it  when  they  needed  it  most.  It  would  be  to 
suppose  that  they  had  this  inspiration  when  they  were  speak- 
ing to  a  few  Jews  with  the  tongue,  and  that  they  had  it  not 
when  they  were  speaking  to  the  whole  world  in  the  most  dis- 
tant generations,  by  the  pen.  It  would  be  to  suppose  that  this 
Divine  influence  was  extended  to  their  words  when  nothing 
depended  upon  those  words  but  their  acquittal  before  some 
petty  tribunal,  but  was  withdrawn  when  the  belief  or  unbelief 
of  these  words  was  to  determine  the  salvation  of  unborn  mil- 
lions. These  suppositions  being  preposterous  and  incredible, 
the  promises  of  our  Lord  most  distinctly  guarantee  the  ver- 
bal inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  promulgation  of  his 
religion,  and  therefore  in  the  Scriptures,  its  promulgation  to 
the  whole  world. 

Another  fact  that  stands  in  contradiction  of  this  theory  is, 
the  remarkable  freedom  of  these  men  from  the  errors  incident 
to  their  age. 

Had  they  all  been  men  of  the  same  generation  and  the  same 
country,  so  that  mutual  understanding  might  be  supposed ; 
had  they  been  disciples  of  the  same  school,  trained  under  the 
same  influences,  or  even  all  been  men  of  a  high  degree  of 
mental  culture,  this  remarkable  fact  might  more  readily  be  ex- 
plained. But  the  reverse  of  these  are  the  facts.  They  were 
men  of  every  grade,  both  of  intellect  and  culture,  from  the 
sage  who  was  versed  in  all  the  lore  of  Egypt,  and  the  orator 
who  studied  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel,  to  the  lowly  herdsman  of 


29 

Tekoa,  and  the  unlettered  fisherman  of  Galilee.  They  were 
found  in  every  part  of  the  civilized  world,  from  the  templed 
margin  of  the  solemn  Nile,  to  the  shady  banks  of  the  lordly 
Euphrates ;  from  the  lonely  sands  of  Arabia,  and  the  rocky 
deserts  of  Judea,  to  the  metropolitan  splendors  of  Jerusalem, 
Ephesus,  Corinth  and  Rome.  They  were  trained  under  every 
school  of  belief,  from  the  dreamy  pantheism  of  Central  Asia, 
and  the  gigantic  astrologies  of  Egypt,  to  the  gorgeous  poly- 
theism of  Greece,  and  tlie  godless  epicureanism  of  Rome. 
They  run  through  fifty  generations  of  the  human  race,  from 
the  sage  who  wrote,  and  the  bard  who  sung,  six  hundred 
years  before  Lycurgus  gave  his  laws,  or  Homer  tuned  his  lyre, 
to  the  lonely  exile  of  Patmos,  who  saw  the  splendid  sunset  of 
the  Augustan  day  of  Roman  literature  and  art.  They  give 
us  every  species  of  composition,  from  those  daring  lyrics  that 
seem  written  to  the  awful  notes  of  the  whirlwind  or  the  ter- 
rible crash  of  the  thunder,  to  the  most  jejune  genealogies  and 
the  most  iron-jointed  chain-work  of  argument.  They  allude 
incidentally  to  every  department  of  Nature,  from  Arcturus  and 
Orion,  to  the  lilies  of  the  field. 

Now  why  do  we  find  these  writers  agreeing  with  each  other 
so  wonderfally  that  no  fair  mind  has,  as  some  of  the  first  in- 
tellects of  the  world  believe,  ever  yet  detected  a  contradiction  ? 
Why  have  they  given  us  a  philosophy  sublimer  than  Plato's, 
and  an  ethics  purer  than  Aristotle's?  And  why  do  they  so 
strangely  escape  the  errors  of  their  day  ?  Why  have  they  not 
given  us  such  theogonies  and  cosmogonies  as  Hesiod,  Ovid 
and  Lucretius  ;  such  pantheism  as  the  Greeks  ;  such  astrology 
as  the  Egyptians ;  or  such  wild,  monstrous  and  incredible  tales 
as  we  have  gravely  recorded  in  the  Natural  Histories  of  Aristotle 
and  the  elder  Pliny?  Why  have  these  fifty  men,  writing  du- 
ring the  fifteen  hundred  years  that  cover  the  four  great  mo- 
narchies, and  the  splendid  eras  of  Egyptian,  Assyrian,  Baby- 
lonian, Grecian  and  Roman  civilization,  and  appearing,  most 
of  them  at  least,  in  an  obscure  and  trampled  province,  yet 
been  kept  from  mere  scientific  error,  as  no  fifty  writers  of  the 


30 

same  period  have  been,  even  though  you  select  them  from 
the  most  learned  and  lofty  intellects  of  the  age  ? 

If  it  be  said  that  it  was  the  nature  of  the  subjects  on  which 
they  wrote,  that  preserved  them  from  error  and  puerility,  then 
we  place  the  fifty  fathers  of  the  Christian  church  beside  the 
fifty  writers  of  the  Scripture,  and  ask  why  the  nature  of  the 
subjects  did  not  preserve  them  from  such  mistakes  ?  Read 
Tertullian's  ascription  of  feeling  and  understanding  to  plants ; 
Augustine's  vehement  and  scornful  denunciation  of  the  alle- 
gation that  there  were  antipodes ;  Ambrose's  opinion  that  the 
sun  drew  up  water  to  cool  and  refresh  himself  in  his  extreme 
heat ;  and  countless  errors  in  history,  geography,  philology 
and  criticism  :  and  tell  us  why  these  fifty  men,  writing  during 
fifteen  hundred  years,  were  exempted  from  the  errors  into 
which  the  fifty  Christian  fathers  fell,  writing,  with  the  Scrip- 
tures in  their  hands,  during  less  than  five  hundred  years  ? 

If  it  be  said  that  it  was  because  of  the  darkness  that  set- 
tled on  the  v/orld  after  the  waning  of  the  Roman  glory,  we 
meet  this  evasion  by  an  exempliim  crucis.  Barnabas,  the  com- 
panion of  Paul,  a  man  testified  to  have  been  full  of  faith  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  has  left  behind  him  an  epistle,  which  the  pri- 
mitive church  held  in  high  estimation,  but  never  placed  in  the 
canon.  The  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the  parts  we 
shall  quote,  are  sufficient  to  use  it  in  argument.  If  this  free- 
dom from  error  arose  from  the  circumstances  in  which  these 
men  were  placed,  of  course  Barnabus  must  share  it.  and  Ave 
need  not  resort  to  the  superintending  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  explain  it.  But  if  we  find  in  Barnabas  the  same  er- 
rors and  puerilities  that  marked  all  other  writers  of  his  age, 
but  those  of  the  New  Testament,  we  must  infer  that  these 
writers  enjoyed  some  influence  which  was  not  possessed  by 
others.  Let  us  then  look  at  a  few  paragraphs  from  the  Catho- 
lic epistle  of  Barnabas. 

"  Abraham  received  the  mystery  of  three  letters.  For  the 
Scripture  says,  that  Abraham  circumcised  three  hundred  and 
eighteen  men  of  his  house.     But  what  therefore  was  the  mys- 


31 

tery  that  was  made  known  to  him  ?  Mark  first  the  eighteen, 
and  next  the  three  hundred.  For  the  numeral  letters  of  ten 
and  eight,  are  I  H.  And  these  denote  Jesus.  And  because 
the  cross  was  that  by  which  we  were  to  find  grace,  therefore 
he  adds,  three  hundred ;  the  note  of  which  is  T,  (the  figure 
of  his  cross.)  Wherefore  by  two  letters,  he  signified  Jesus, 
and  by  the  third  his  cross."     •§>  9. 

"Bat  why  did  Moses  say  'ye  shall  not  cat  of  the  swine, 
neither  the  eagle,  nor  the  hawk,  nor  the  crow,  nor  any  fish 
that  has  not  a  scale  upon  him  ?'  I  answer  that  in  the  spiritual 
sense,  he  comprehended  three  doctrines.  Now,  the  sow  he 
forbade  them  to  eat ;  meaning  thus  much  :  thou  shalt  not  join 
thyself  to  such  persons  as  are  like  unto  the  swine,  who,  whilst 
they  live  in  pleasure,  forget  their  God,  but  when  any  want 
pinches  them,  then  they  know  the  Lord ;  as  the  sow  when 
she  is  full,  knows  not  her  master,  but  when  she  is  hungry,  she 
makes  a  noise,  and  being  again  fed  is  silent.  Neither,  saith  he, 
shalt  thou  eat  the  lamprey,  nor  the  polypus,  nor  the  cuttle  fish, 
that  is,  thou  shalt  not  be  like  such  men,  who  are  altogether 
wicked  and  adjudged  to  death.  For  so  these  fishes  are  alone 
accursed,  and  wallow  in  the  mire,  nor  swim  as  other  fishes,  but 
tumble  in  the  dirt  at  the  bottom  of  the  deep.  Neither  shalt 
thou  eat  of  the  hyena,  that  is,  be  an  adulterer ;  because  that 
creature  every  year  changes  its  kind,  and  is  sometimes  male 
and  sometimes  female.  For  which  cause,  also,  he  justly  ha- 
ted the  weasel,  to  the  end  that  they  should  not  be  like  such 
persons  who  commit  wickedness  with  their  mouths ;  because 
that  animal  conceives  with  its  mouth." 

"  Therefore  David  took  aright  the  knowledge  of  his  three- 
fold command,  saying  in  like  manner :  "  blessed  is  the  man 
that  hath  not  walked  in  the  counsel  of  the  ungodly,  (Ps.  1:  1,) 
as  the  fishes  before  mentioned  in  the  bottom  of  the  deep  in 
darkness  ;  nor  stood  in  the  way  of  sinners  ;  as  they  that  seem 
to  fear  the  Lord,  but  yet  sin,  as  the  sow.  And  hath  net  sat 
in  the  seat  of  the  scorners,  as  those  birds  who  sit  and  watch 
that  they  may  devour.     Here  you  have  the  law  concerning 


32 

meat  fully  set  forth,  and  according  to  the  true  knowledge  of 
it."     '^  10. 

"  But  why  might  they  eat  those  that  clave  the  hoof  ?  be- 
cause the  righteous  liveth  in  this  present  world,  but  his  ex- 
pectation is  fixed  upon  the  other."     *§.  10. 

Compare  these  puerile  conceits,  and  exploded  fables  with 
the  high  and  manly  views  of  Paul  on  the  same  subject,  and 
tell  us  what  makes  the  difference  ?  Why  lias  the  one  fallen 
into  scientific  as  well  as  exegetical  errors,  and  the  other  not  ? 
According  to  the  verbal  theory,  the  reason  is  plain,  but  accor- 
ding to  the  one  under  discussion,  this  is  utterly  inexplicable. 
The  quotations  from  Barnabas  strike  it  with  a  double  edge, 
for  they  prove  first,  the  profound  and  even  superstitious  re- 
verence which  the  primitive  church  had  for  the  very  words  of 
Scripture,  as  inspired  receptacles  of  revealed  truth,  a  thing  de- 
nied by  Mr.  Morell :  and  they  show  in  the  second  place,  that 
men  who  were  not  of  the  number  of  these  canonical  writers, 
though  their  very  companions  and  colaborers,  were  yet  liable 
to  all  the  errors  of  their  age  ;  a  fact  which  proves  that  this  re- 
markable exemption  from  error  can  only  be  accounted  for  by 
supposing  precisely  such  an  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as 
this  theory  denies. 

Another  fact  which  contradicts  this  theory,  is,  the  admitted 
limitation  of  these  higher  phenomena  of  inspiration,  to  these 
fifty  writers. 

If  these  phenomena  be  generically  the  same  with  the 
actings  of  the  intuitional  consciousness,  or  with  a  high  de- 
gree of  sanctification,  why  have  they  appeared  in  so  few  ? 
Surely  if  inspiration  be  only  an  intensification  and  clari- 
fication of  the  pure  reason,  we  may  naturally  look  for  it 
wherever  that  reason  has  been  largely  developed,  and  directed 
to  the  subject  of  religion.  Now  it  cannot  for  a  moment  be 
doubted  that  Socrates,  Plato,  Aristotle  and  Cicero,  had  a  lar- 
ger development,  and  a  more  scientific  culture  of  the  intuitive 
faculty  than  Asaph  and  Amos,  Mark  and  James.  Why  then, 
are  not  their  writings  on  the  subject  of  religion  equally  true 


83 

and  authoritative  ?  And  why  have  these  phenomena  ceased 
with  these  men  ?  By  the  terms  of  this  new  philosophy,  the 
intuitional  consciousness  of  the  human  race  is  constantly  de- 
veloping and  working  itself  to  a  higher  range  and  a  clearer 
vision.  Why  then  has  it  failed  to  produce  these  phenomena, 
which,  according  to  this  theory,  are  identical  with  its  devel- 
opment ?  Bacon,  Newton,  and  Kant  had,  if  this  theory  of  pro- 
gressive development  be  true,  necessarily,  a  larger  and  clearer 
unfolding  of  this  consciousness  than  some  of  these  writers ; 
why  were  not  they  as  fully  inspired  ?  If  they  were,  where  is 
the  proof  of  the  fact,  either  in  their  claims,  their  writings,  or 
their  influence  ?  If  they  were  not,  the  theory  breaks  hope- 
lessly down. 

Another  fact  that  conflicts  with  this  theory,  is,  the  won- 
derful beauty  and  power  of  these  writings. 

Here  are  the  compositions  of  plain,  unlettered  men  and  wo- 
men, which  as  mere  literary  productions,  have  stood  peerless 
and  unattainable,  in  their  strange  power  to  touch  and  move 
the  human  heart.  It  is  an  inexplicable  fact  to  this  theory, 
that  a  Deborah,  an  Amos  and  a  Mary,  have,  whilst  under  the 
power  of  this  high  afflatus,  produced  some  of  the  finest  po- 
etic eft'usions  in  ancient  literature.  But  this  fact,  difficult  as 
it  is,  gives  way  before  another  which  is  more  hopelessly  inex- 
plicable. It  is  that  mysterious  |;o/^er  which  these  words  pos- 
sess. Even  Coleridge,  in  his  attempt  to  unsettle  the  common 
theory,  confesses  that  the  Bible  meets  him  further  down  in 
his  nature,  and  speaks  deeper  to  his  heart  than  any  other  book. 
This  is  a  fact  that  has  again  and  again  been  felt.  There  are 
times  in  a  man's  history,  when  these  words  seem  to  blaze  with 
such  a  depth  of  significance,  that  we  tremble  with  avve,  or 
thrill  with  gladness,  at  the  unutterable  things  tliat  glow  and 
stretch  away  behind  them.  They  seem  like  apertures  tin-ough 
which  we  see  the  awful  light  of  eternity.  This  is  not  the  fancy 
of  a  few  heated  enthusiasts,  but  the  recorded  testimony  of 
some  of  the  calmest,  loftiest,  and  purest  minds  of  our  race. 
Nor  is  it  a  mere  literary  phenomenon,  for  it  is  felt  by  the  CaffVe 
3 


34 

woman  in  the  bush,  and  the  toiling  artizan  in  the  workshop, 
as  deeply  as  by  the  mystic  dreamer  of  Kubla  Khan,  or  the 
lofty  Jansenist  of  Port  Royal.  They  all  testify  with  one  voice, 
that  as  they  gaze  on  these  words,  there  are  periods  when  they 
seem  to  open  up  a  shaft  of  light,  which  at  one  time  is  all  flash- 
ing with  the  brightness  of  Heaven,  and  at  another,  all  red 
with  the  glare  of  Hell.  How  can  this  fact,  as  a  mere  psy- 
chological phenomenon,  be  explained  ?  If  it  be  true  that  Je- 
hovah has  in  very  deed  enshrined  Himself  in  these  wonderful 
words,  unfolding  a  gleam  of  the  awful  Shekinah  to  the  un- 
veiled and  disenchanted  spirit,  we  can  understand  this  strange 
and  mysterious  power.  If  these  books  be  as  some  wondrous 
wind-harp,  or  some  Memnonian  sculpture,  from  whose  depths 
the  breath  of  God's  mouth,  and  the  light  of  God's  presence 
evoke  this  strange  melody,  we  can  comprehend  to  some  ex- 
tent, the  secret  of  its  entrancing  strains.  But  if,  as  this  the- 
ory teaches,  there  is  no  such  indwelling  of  the  Godhead  in 
these  writings  ;  and  no  such  breathing  of  God's  Spirit  through 
these  words,  this  fact  stands  before  us,  in  the  phenomena  of 
mind,  an  inscrutable  and  inexplicable  mystery. 

A  kindred  fact  to  these,  is  the  amazing  effect  that  these  wri- 
tings have  had  on  human  society. 

Without  referring  to  the  history  of  the  past,  it  is  sufiicient 
to  point  to  the  map  of  the  world,  and  advert  to  the  fact,  that 
wherever  you  find  greatness,  growth  and  power,  civil  rights, 
and  civil  liberty,  national  prosperity  and  national  happiness, 
there  you  will  find  a  free  and  open  Bible  ;  and  wherever  you 
find  the  Bible  restrained,  or  entirely  absent,  even  though  the 
institutions  of  Christianity  are  existing  and  acting,  there  you 
will  find  in  the  same  proportion  the  absence  of  these  social 
and  national  characteristics.  Mere  natural  causes  cannot  ex- 
plain this  fact.  The  same  old  and  solemn  river  still  flows  past 
Memphis  and  Thebes ;  the  same  sapphire  sky  yet  hangs  over 
Babylon  and  Bagdad  ;  and  the  same  tall  mountains  look  down 
like  giant  watchers  on  the  plains  where  the  Persian,  the  Greek, 
the  Roman  and  the  Turk  erected  the  gorgeous  memorials  of 


85 

their  majesty  and  might.  But  the  glory  has  departed.  And 
whither  ?  It  is  found  precisely  in  those  lands  where  the  Bible 
goes  freely  and  broadly  forth.  And  though  these  lands  should 
be  but  a  misty  isle  in  the  ocean,  or  a  continent  sleeping  but  a 
few  years  since  in  the  silence  of  a  primeval  forest,  yet  with 
an  open  Bible  in  their  habitations,  these  hardy  Anglo  Saxons 
shall  wield  the  destinies  of  the  world.  Now  if  it  be  true, 
that  these  writings,  like  the  Ark  of  God,  contain  the  shrined 
Shekinah,  the  very  light  of  Almightiness,  we  can  understand 
their  power,  and  marvel  not  that  they  have  evoked  such 
mighty  results  in  human  history,  for  we  see  that  these  results 
are  to  be  referred  to  the  Anglo  Saxon  Bible,  rather  than  to  the 
Anglo  Saxon  blood.  But  if  not,  we  cannot  see  why  other 
books,  written  by  men  in  no  apparent  respect  the  inferiors  of 
many  of  these,  and  discussing  the  same  great  truths,  should  yet 
produce  an  effect  so  circumscribed  and  shallow  compared  with 
them  ;  and  we  stand  before  this  fact,  bewildered  and  confoun- 
ded in  astonishment. 

Another  objection  to  this  theory  is,  that  it  destroys  tlie  au- 
thority of  the  Bible,  and  thus  destroys  its  influence,  and  tends 
to  defeat  its  great  purpose  in  the  world. 

We  are  aware  that  the  argument  from  consequences  is  not 
always  a  valid  one,  but  neither  is  it  always  invalid.  "  You 
say,"  replied  Rousseau  to  one  of  his  antagonists,  "  that  the 
truth  can  do  no  harm.  I  know  it.  and  for  that  reason,  do  I 
know  that  your  opinion  is  an  error."  Nor  was  the  brilliant 
Frenchman  wrong  in  this  acute  response.  Truth  can  do  no 
harm,  but  falsehood  may ;  and  if  we  see  that  a  position  or 
theory  inevitably  tends  to  do  harm,  we  may  fairly  urge  this 
as,  at  least,  a  presumption  of  its  error. 

If  the  Bible  is  not  an  inspired  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  we 
are,  of  course,  not  bound  to  believe  and  do  what  it  enjoins, 
any  further  than  we  are  to  obey  the  writings  of  any  other 
wise  and  good  men.  What  restraint  then  have  we  for  the 
masses?  What  spell  tliat  can  curb  their  wild  and  lawless  pas- 
sions ?     If  their  blind  reasonings  lead  them  to  agrarianism,  so- 


36 

cialism,  revolution  or  anarchy,  what  word  of  man  shall  be 
mighty  enough  to  arrest  them  in  their  rush  of  ruin  ?  Must 
not  the  voice  of  reason  be  drowned  in  the  roar  of  revolution  ? 

Germany  furnishes  us  a  case  exactly  in  point.  Strauss,  in 
his  life  of  Jesus,  labored  most  earnestly  to  inculcate  essen- 
tially this  theory,  and  succeeded  in  giving  it  a  wide  preva- 
lence in  all  classes  of  society.  He  denied  that  the  Bible  was 
the  inspired  word  of  God,  and  its  teachings  authoritative. 
The  dragon's  teeth  were  thus  sown  broadcast  over  the  land, 
the  fell  harvest  soon  showed  its  bristling  array,  in  the  terrible 
scenes  of  1848.  When  these  popular  uprisings  began  to  star- 
tle the  world,  the  learned  professor  began  to  recoil  from  the 
consequences  of  his  theory.  He  found  that  he  had  unchained 
the  tiger,  and  sought  to  coax  and  wheedle  him  back  to  his 
cage.  He  therefore  traversed  the  villages  of  his  native  Swa- 
bia,  striving  to  undo  the  dreadful  work  he  had  wrought  in  the 
minds  of  the  peasantry.  These  efforts  have  been  published 
in  what  he  terms  his  Theologico-Political  Discourses,  and  in 
them  he  thus  addresses  the  peasantry.  "  It  is  not  for  you,  that 
I  wrote  the  life  of  Jesus.  Let  this  work  alone,  it  will  impart 
doubts  which  you  have  not  now.  You  have  better  things  to 
read.  Study,  especially,  precepts  like  these  :  Blessed  are  the 
pure  in  heart !  Blessed  are  the  merciful !"  But  who  reasons 
most  logically,  if  this  theory  be  true,  the  peasant  or  the  phi- 
losopher ?  The  peasant,  undoubtedly ;  for  it  would  be  hard  to 
prove  to  him,  that  what  is  a  truth  to  him,  is  a  lie  to  his  neigh- 
bor ;  that  he  is  bound  by  a  book  which  does  not  bind  the 
philosopher ;  and  that  he  is  in  duty  bound  to  revere  and  obey 
a  religion  which  the  philosopher  recommends  only  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  police  officer  and  the  constable.  Hence  he 
claims  the  same  freedom  with  the  philosopher,  and  refuses  to 
pinion  himself  with  a  politic  falsehood. 

Nor  is  the  sweep  of  this  theory  limited  to  the  simple  pea- 
sant. If  the  Bible  be  not  an  infallible  standard  of  belief  and 
practice,  then  the  philosopher  has  no  basis  of  certitude  as  to 
any  thing  that  is  not  a  matter  of  direct  sensation  or  conscious- 


37 

ness.  God,  Heaven,  Hell,  Eternity,  Judgment,  Resurrection, 
and  all  the  unseen  and  the  spiritual,  are  shrouded  in  voice- 
less and  terrible  uncertainty.  The  state  of  facts  declared  by 
these  writers  of  the  Bible,  may  be  the  true  one,  but  we  have 
no  more  absolute  certainty  of  it  than  we  have  of  the  opinions 
of  Confucius,  Zoroaster,  Plato  or  Epicurus.  These  men  may 
have  been  inspired,  but  we  have  no  proof  of  the  fact  on  which 
we  can  rely.  And  even  if  they  were  inspired,  that  inspiration 
in  their  minds  avails  nothing  to  us,  unless  we  are  sure  that  we 
have  a  certain  and  reliable  record  of  the  truths  perceived  by 
them  in  this  inspired  state.  They  may  have  truly  received 
the  word  from  God,  but  this  is  of  little  avail  to  us,  unless  we 
know  that  they  have  as  truly  transmitted  it  to  us.  Hence,  if 
this  be  all  the  inspiration  they. possessed,  however  valuable  it 
may  have  been  to  them,  it  is  of  little  value  to  us,  and  can  only 
serve  to  tantalize  us  with  the  knowledge  that  these  few  men 
have  been  favored  with  a  light  from  Heaven,  whilst  the  rest 
of  mankind  have  been  left  only  to  that  amount  of  this  light 
which  they,  in  their  imperfect  and  undirected  judgment,  have 
been  able  to  transmit.  We  are  yet  without  any  distinct  ut- 
terance on  which  we  can  rely  to  tell  us  what  we  must  cer- 
tainly believe,  and  what  we  must  necessarily  do. 

It  is  replied  to  this  by  Mr.  Morell  and  the  modern  philoso- 
phy, that  the  only  and  the  sufficient  basis  of  certitude,  is  the 
dictates  of  the  universal  consciousness  of  the  human  race. 
We  ask  what  are  these  dictates  ?  Where  are  they  recorded  ? 
Who  are  their  reporters  ?  And  who  shall  tell  us  which  repor- 
ter is  the  most  trustworthy  ?  The  old  Egyptian  and  Chal- 
daic  teachings  were  overturned  by  Pythagoras ;  he  is  set  aside 
by  the  Porch  and  the  Academy  in  their  multitudinous  ramifi- 
cations ;  they  by  the  Gnostics  and  Neo-Platonists ;  they  by 
the  Schoolmen ;  they  by  the  Cartesians ;  they  by  Leibnitz 
and  Wolf;  they  by  Locke  and  Hume  ;  they  by  Kant ;  he  by 
Fichte,  Schelling,  Hegel,  Schleiermacher,  Strauss,  Cousin, 
&c.,  &c.,  and  they  by  the  next  avatar  of  the  philosophic  spirit, 
the  arrival  of  which  has  not  yet  been  telegraphed.  In  this 
3* 


38 

chase  of  phantoms,  what  shall  we  believe  ?  May  not  the  next 
morning  newspaper  that  gives  us  the  price  of  stocks  and  cot- 
ton, also  inform  us  of  the  appearance  of  some  new  philoso- 
pher whose  teachings  shall  supplant  all  his  predecessors,  and 
leave  us  bankrupt  in  our  faith  ?  What  shall  we  trust  ?  Jesus 
we  know,  and  Paul  we  know,  and  can  discover  the  truth  if 
they  have  taught  it.  We  also  know  that  Augustine  and  Lu- 
ther, and  the  great  mass  of  theologians  have  taught  essentially 
the  same  things.  If  then  the  Bible  be  the  standard  of  truth, 
we  know  what  to  believe ;  if  not,  we  are  launched  on  a 
shoreless  and  fathomless  ocean,  without  landmark,  or  pilot,  or 
chart  or  compass,  while  the  waters  are  covered  with  darkness. 
But  if  the  general  suffrage  of  the  enlightened  conscious- 
ness of  the  human  race  be,  as  this  philosophy  avers,  the  ulti- 
mate basis  of  certitude,  and  therefore  the  last  tribunal  of  ap- 
peal, we  can  of  course  carry  this  question  there  for  decision. 
If  this  basis  be  valid  for  other  matters  of  opinion,  much  more 
must  it  be  for  this  which  is  under  discussion.  It  is  alleged 
by  this  theory,  that  inspiration  is  nothing  but  the  elevation 
and  illumination  of  this  intuitive  consciousness  to  the  percep- 
tion of  spiritual  truth.  Of  course  then,  if  there  is  any  case 
which  we  may  safely  refer  to  this  chosen  tribunal,  it  is  the 
present,  an  alleged  phenomenon  of  its  own  nature.  And  if 
there  is  any  expression  of  this  consciousness  on  which  we 
can  rely,  it  is  found  in  the  prevailing  opinions  of  the  Christian 
church,  in  the  bosom  of  which  these  phenomena  of  inspira- 
tion are  confessedly  found.  What  then  is  the  testimony  of 
the  Christian  consciousness  on  this  point.  Does  it  recognize 
these  high  functions  which  are  alleged  to  belong  to  it  ?  We 
but  record  a  notorious  fact  in  ecclesiastical  history,  when  we 
say  that  its  response  to  this  appeal  is  in  direct  and  emphatic 
contradiction  of  the  averments  of  this  theory.  It  positively 
denies  that  among  its  phenomena  are  included  those  of  inspi- 
ration. This  question  is  not  one  that  is  sprung  upon  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  church,  now  for  the  first  time,  but  one  which 
has  been  before  her  in  various  forms  for  centuries.     And  al- 


39 

though  this  precise  form  of  a  theory  to  be  substituted  for  that 
of  verbal  inspiration  may  not  have  been  previously  presented, 
yet  all  that  is  essential  to  it  has  been  before  the  church  for 
many  generations,  and  received  the  most  emphatic  condemna- 
tion and  rejection.  Every  student  of  the  history  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine  knows,  that  from  Theodore  of  Mopsuesta  down 
to  the  last  nine  days  wonder  in  the  Fatherland,  those  who 
have  held  any  views  denying  the  plenary,  verbal  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures,  have  been  regarded  as  heretics  and  enemies  of 
the  truth.  The  researches  of  such  men  as  Lardner,  Whitby, 
and  Rudelbach,  especially  the  latter,  have  established  it  be- 
yond contradiction,  that  true  or  false,  the  verbal  theory  has 
always  been  that  of  the  Christian  church.  Surely  then,  if 
there  was  ever  a  point  on  which  the  purified  consciousness  of 
humanity  has  pronounced,  and  on  which  its  decisions  can  be 
ascertained,  it  is  the  one  now  before  us.  Hence,  when  phi- 
losophy appeals  from  the  written  word,  to  this  collective  con- 
sciousness, on  a  point  so  clearly  within  its  jurisdiction,  and  so 
long  before  its  consideration,  the  appellant  must  abide  by  the 
decisions  of  the  chosen  arbiter.  Now  as  the  distinct  affirma- 
tion of  the  Christian  consciousness,  for  many  generations  is, 
that  inspiration  is  not  among  its  phenomena,  we  allege  that, 
as  an  argmnentum  ad  hotninem,  this  decision  is  absolutely 
fatal  to  the  theory  under  discussion. 

If  then  this  theory  of  inspiration  is  a  mere  arbitrary  fig- 
ment, invented  to  remove  some  difficulties  that  are  more  ima- 
ginary than  real ;  if  it  has  been  formed  not  only  without  re- 
ference to  the  facts  to  be  explained  by  it,  but  in  direct  contra- 
diction of  them ;  if  it  removes  us  from  one  difficulty  by 
plunging  us  into  others  tenfold  more  embarrassing  ;  if  it  re- 
lieves the  reason  of  man  at  the  expense  of  the  righteousness 
of  God ;  if  it  takes  from  us  our  only  lamp  of  guidance  in  the 
vale  of  tears,  and  then  tells  us  to  find  the  path  to  Heaven  by  our 
own  purblind  vision,  when  false  lights  are  gleaming  and  gli- 
ding all  around  us ;  if  it  teaches  that  God  has  taken  less  care 
to  ensure  the  acciurate  publication  of  his  laws  and  amnesties, 


than  the  most  negligent  and  tyrannical  government  on  earth 
has  done  of  theirs ;  if  it  teaches  that  He  has  required  us  to 
believe  the  truth  under  the  most  terrific  penalties,  and  yet  has 
made  no  certain  provision  that  what  is  offered  to  our  belief  is 
the  truth ;  if  it  teaches  that  effects  the  most  extraordinary 
have  been  produced  by  causes  the  most  ordinary  and  inade- 
quate ;  if  it  destroys  the  reverence  that  men  have  for  the  Bi- 
ble, neutralizes  its  authority  over  them,  and  leads  them  to  ne- 
glect and  disobey  its  injunctions,  thus  defeating  the  very  end 
of  its  production,  and  charging  its  author  with  folly ;  if  it  is 
ignored  at  the  very  tribunal  to  which  it  has  carried  its  final 
appeal ;  then  we  are  at  liberty  to  reject  it  as  false,  and 
cling  to  the  honored  faith  of  our  fathers;  the  faith  that 
cheered  them  in  sorrow,  that  nerved  them  in  danger,  and  that 
upheld  them  in  death,  that  this  blessed  Book  is  indeed  the 
word  of  the  living  God,  and  that  in  listening  to  its  wondrous 
tidings,  we  are  listening  to  the  voice  of  the  Eternal  and  the 
Almighty,  inasmuch  as  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  the  inspira- 
tion of  God,"  and  given  because  "  holy  men  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

It  is  with  joy  then,  that  we  find  this  last,  and  in  some  re- 
spects, most  powerful  effort  to  overturn  our  old  and  cherished 
faith,  as  empty  and  weak  as  those  that  have  gone  before  it. 
Philosophy  and  human  wisdom  may  neglect  this  light  from 
Heaven,  and  walk  by  the  sparks  of  their  own  kindling,  but 
this  light  can  never  be  put  out,  even  though  these  proud 
wanderers  should  have  it  at  God's  hand  to  lie  down  at  last  in 
sorrow  and  gloom. 

Life  lies  before  you,  young  man,  all  gleaming  and  flashing 
in  the  light  of  your  early  hopes,  like  a  summer  sea.  But 
bright  though  it  seem  in  the  silvery  sheen  of  its  far-off  beauty, 
it  is  a  place  where  many  a  sunken  rock  and  many  a  treache- 
rous quicksand  have  made  shipwreck  of  immortal  hopes.  And 
calm  though  its  polished  surface  may  sleep,  without  a  ripple 
or  a  shade,  it  shall  yet  be  overhung  to  you  by  the  darkness  of 
the  night,  and  the  wildness  of  the  tempest.     And  oh !  if  in 


41 

these  lonely  and  perilous  scenes  of  your  voyage,  you  were 
left  without  a  landmark  or  a  beacon,  how  sad  and  fearful  were 
your  lot.  But  blessed  be  God  !  you  are  not.  Far  up  on  the 
rock  of  ages,  there  streams  a  light  from  the  Eternal  Word, 
the  light  that  David  saw  and  rejoiced  ;  the  light  that  Paul  saw 
and  took  courage ;  the  light  that  has  guided  the  ten  thousand 
times  ten  thousand,  that  have  already  reached  the  happy  isles 
of  the  blest.  There  it  stands,  the  Pharos  of  this  dark  and 
stormy  scene,  with  a  flame  that  was  kindled  in  Heaven,  and 
that  comes  down  to  us  reflected  from  many  a  glorious  image 
of  prophet,  apostle  and  martyr.  Many  a  rash  and  wicked 
spirit  has  sought  to  put  out  this  light,  and  on  the  pinion  of  a 
reckless  daring,  has  furiously  dashed  itself  against  it,  but  has 
only  fallen  stunned  and  blackened  in  the  surf  below.  Many 
a  storm  of  hate  and  fury,  has  dashed  wildly  against  it,  cover- 
ing it  for  a  time  with  spray,  but  when  the  fiercest  shock  has 
spent  its  rage,  and  the  proud  waves  rolled  all  shivered  and 
sullenly  back,  the  beacon  has  still  gleamed  on  high  and  clear 
above  the  raging  waters.  Another  storm  is  now  dashing 
against  it ;  and  another  cloud  of  mist  is  flung  around  it,  but 
when  these  also  have  expended  their  might,  the  rock,  and  the 
beacon  shall  be  unharmed  still.  "  We  have  a  more  sure  word 
of  prophecy,  whereunto  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as  unto 
a  light  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day  dawn  and 
the  day-star  arise  in  your  hearts."  When  this  promised  time 
shall  have  come,  when  the  dappling  dawn  shall  have  broad- 
ened and  brightened  into  the  perfect  day,  then,  and  not  until 
then,  shall  the  light  of  this  sure  beacon  pale  before  the  bright- 
ness of  that  day,  whose  morning  is  Heaven,  and  whose  noon- 
tide is  eternity.  But  until  then,  in  spite  of  the  false  lights 
that  flash  upon  our  track,  and  gleam  fitfully  from  billow  to 
billow,  our  steady  gaze  and  our  earnest  heed  shall  be  to  this 
sure  word  of  prophecy,  and  the  motto  we  shall  ever  unfurl  to 
the  winds,  shall  be,  "  the  Bible,  the  Bible,  the  light-house  oj 
the  woj'ld.^^ 


1 

i 


.PAMPHLET  BINDER 

^^^    Syrocuse,  N.    Y. 
Stockton,  Colif. 


DATE  DUE 

Iff  4^ 

5 

GAYLORD 

rninJcoiNU.*.A. 

^^:'-- 


